January 30, 2013 § Leave a comment
THAT’S ONE POINT BURIED in this story by CBS-2’s Jay Levine.
We’re not sure whether Weis’ opinion has been reported previously; it may not be “news” in the strictest sense. Still, it is very significant, and deserves better play in the news coverage surrounding this contentious issue. Every time Emanuel and current CPD chief McCarthy get their say about evil demon guns being the cause of crime, the former chief — every bit as much of an authority in matters of crime and guns — should get equal time to explain why adding more gun laws to the existing mountain won’t make the law-abiding populace any safer.
January 10, 2013 § 1 Comment
A LOT OF PEOPLE only “know” about guns via Hollywood violence-porn and the highly selective images of sensational crimes on the news. Politicians and anti-rights activists are exploiting this widespread ignorance, and the emotion created by a few horrific crimes such as the Sandy Hook school shooting by an alleged psycho. They want to whip us all into a frenzy against firearms in general and modern firearms in particular. Various proposals aim to ban modern (semiautomatic) firearms entirely, tax ammunition heavily, or limit clips to only 10 rounds because, the refrain goes, “who needs more than that?”
We’re tempted to come up with some snappy answer to this stupid question — such as: “who needs more than ten pickles? We must ban those gallon jars of pickles at Walmart!” Or “who needs more than ten White Castle sliders?”
Or, on a much more serious note: “who needs a car that has more than four cylinders and travels faster than 55 mph?” Vehicle traffic deaths are more than double those caused by gun crimes in the uSA.
That figure does not even include accidental carbon monoxide poisoning deaths or any other automobile contribution to deaths from long-term exposure to pollution. But even without those factors, automobiles are incredibly lethal weapons. Where is the outcry to ban these rolling death machines?
That consideration alone should radically redirect our discussion about the real dangers on the loose in our society. But let’s directly discuss what guns are for, how law-abiding Americans actually use them, and why you need more than ten rounds.
One answer was suggested by a caller to the syndicated Mark Levin radio show tonight. Identifying himself as a retired SWAT officer, the caller said:
“You need more than ten rounds to get the job done sometimes.”
The job being, defending yourself against criminals — especially if there’s more than one of them.
The retired officer recounted a firefight between armed thugs and himself and his fellow cops. The cops managed to get two rounds into the bad guys — but in order to do that, they had to fire 60 between them.
These were, of course, highly trained professionals.
“The amount of ammo you need is determined after the gunfight is done,” the retired officer said. Especially when someone’s shooting at you, “you need the extra rounds.”
Now some might object: “we can’t have untrained civilians firing off 60 rounds in public; innocent bystanders will get shot.”
The good thing is, the chances you’ll need to actually use that much ammo at once are next to nil. First, the average citizen isn’t trying to subdue and arrest bad guys; he only needs to scare them away. Wounding or killing the attackers is a last resort. Most people, in fact, only need to brandish a weapon to surprise the attacker and cause a hasty retreat. (Varied estimates say that anywhere from 70 to 95 percent of defensive gun uses involve only displaying the weapon — not firing it.) And by far, most uses of firearms in the united States are defensive.
However, we’re not saying that extraordinary event might not come that necessitates you having to empty that clip. Ask these merchants who found their shops being attacked, looted and burned by frenzied hate mobs and gangbangers, whether they should have had a right to use modern weapons to defend themselves and their property..
(See minutes 43 through 48:30.)
Also, ask them whether they should have been limited to ten rounds per clip. Or perhaps, subjected to an onerous Chris Rock tax on ammo.
If you feel strongly against guns, no one is making you buy one. But would you like to tell those people — or if they have passed on by now, their children and grandchildren — that they deserved to lose everything they’d built, and possibly their lives, because “the only purpose of assault weapons is to kill” and “no one needs that much ammunition”?
In non-riot circumstances, the most powerful benefit of firearms comes where guns are plentiful but invisible. An abundance of weapons in the hands of good guys — especially concealed, so the bad guys don’t know who’s carrying — logically and empirically has a deterrent effect, lessening the likelihood of attack in the first place. In areas with legal concealed carry, violent crime tends to fall, not rise.
Putting firearms in the hands of law-abiding people, and actually prosecuting and punishing actual crime (whether done with or without a gun), is the front-line answer to violent crime — not the upside- down logic of punishing the good, rendering them disarmed sitting ducks against people determined to break the law.